Tuesday, March 26, 2013

On Javier Bardem’s Cause in the Western Sahara

Western Sahara was front and center in CNN’s
latest edition of Amanpour, marking a rare instance in which the oft-overlooked and stalemated
conflict has been treated as more than a peripheral issue in the Western media.
Amanpour hosted and plugged a new documentary film on the Western Sahara that claims
to shed light on the Moroccan occupation of the territory and abuses of human
rights. The documentary, “Sons
of the Clouds: The Last Colony" probably wouldn’t have caught anyone’s attention, including a high-level congressional
viewing, if it were not the project of Hollywood
A-list and Oscar-winning actor Javier Bardem. Though he is most well-known for
his love stories of “Vicky, Christina, Barcelona,” and villainous roles in “No
Country for Old Men,” and in the latest James Bond “Skyfall”, the Spanish actor
has been an active and staunch advocate for the POLISARIO and the right of the
Sahrawis for self-determination.

Morocco’s litany of violations of human
rights and individual liberties in and outside the Western Sahara are indeed
indefensible. However, Bardem’s portrayal of the conflict
is one-dimensional in its focus on human rights, and myopic in its scope. By facilely
linking the issue of self-determination to human rights violations, Bardem
deemphasizes Morocco's
historical ties to the territory and presents a misleadingly uncomplicated treatment
of the issue. The historical past of the Western Sahara is encumbered by of the
colonial intrusion of North Africa by [specify by whom/give a little more info
or link out to another source], which left its indelible marks on the culture,
the people and the politics of the region. . However, the United Nations’
application of self-determination in the Saharan territory has completely
ignored the colonial powers’ process of re-drawing the borders of the region,
and how that affected the identity of the local population.

Self-determination has long been a concept
that dominated the discourse on the conflict. In addition to regional rivalry,
a solution to the conflict has been premised on/hinged on determining a rightful
modicum for identifying who is considered Sahrawi, and therefore eligible to
vote in the ever so elusive referendum. Though talks of a referendum have been
de-emphasized given Moroccan plans for granting Sahrawi autonomy under Moroccan
sovereignty, the quintessential issue, at least in my estimation, is an issue
of identity, and how it has been conceptualized and articulated according to
the terms of modern self-determination discourse.

Indeed, the modern notion of self-determination
could grant people in the Western Sahara the opportunity to choose autonomy and
sovereignty. However, it does not lay down the parameters of defining such
people. A simple theoretical discussion on the evolution of the norm of
self-determination leaves us with the contentious question: Who is entitled to
take part in deciding the future of the Western Sahara through the UN sponsored
referendum? To be sure, even the dizzying number of UN resolutions on the
Western Sahara fail to demarcate the contours of Sahrawi identity, yet this
identity undergirds the right of self-determination as sine qua non to
self-governance. However, such conceptualizations of the Western Sahara reflect
the United Nations’ lack of historical knowledge (or perhaps even ambivalent
ignorance) of the territory, which could enriched how the complex identity
issues at stake for all parties involved are understood.

The issue of self-determination,
specifically a Wilsonian conception of it, would grant a vote for minorities in
the region. However, this is difficult as we try to ascertain legal ties to the
land since the territory was not clearly demarcated and many local tribes paid
allegiance to different historical powers. It is also disingenuous to isolate said
allegiances from the context of the historical Moroccan sharifian State, which exerted a pseudo-control over the
territory. In fact, these Sahrawi tribes led an autonomous life and paid
allegiance to the central authority of the Makhzen, with each tribe having an
internal governance structure. This is not far off from what Morocco is
offering today, which is located between paying allegiance to the central power
and leading an autonomous lifestyle from within the tribe.

The interplay of power within the Makhzen
between Bilad al-Makhzen (territories firmly under state control in terms of
rule and taxation) and Bilad es-Siba (under nominal authority of the sultan) is
often marginalized in discussions by analysts of the conflict, privileging the
international community's efforts to force a self-determination referendum. The
boundaries of the territory itself are colonial impositions and were drawn with
no regard for the existing nomadic tribes that roamed throughout the entire sub-Saharan
region. Self-determination of peoples, only in the Western Sahara (as
demarcated now) legitimizes colonial structures that were imposed in the first
place. In other words, the international community, through the United Nations,
is trying to implement the referendum for self-determination in the Western
Sahara based on the colonially-imposed demarcations of the region. Morocco opposes
this simply because this application of the discourse of self-determination
completely denies its historical ties with the region.

Morocco's plan for Sahrawi autonomy under
Moroccan sovereignty has the U.S., France and Spain's support, but the
POLISARIO and its benefactor Algeria have rejected the plan as a mere Moroccan
attempt to tighten its de facto control over the territory. The talks between
the two parties (some say three parties, including Algeria) to work on
confidence-building measures have led nowhere over the last few years.

In addition to identity and historical
factors, the conflict has regional and international dimensions. The non-interventionary
strategies deployed by major international powers in the past as well as the
general lack of international urgency on
the issue have contributed to prolonging the conflict. Only targeted pressure
and active diplomatic engagement from the United States, France, or the
European community as a bloc can provide a window of hope in the resolution of
the dispute, and provide some much-need relief to the plight of the thousands
of Sahrawis in the camps of Tindouf in Algeria.

Regional issues have also hindered any
successful resolution of the conflict. The nature of inter-Maghrebi politics,
especially the rivalry between Morocco and Algeria, have fueled the conflict
and exacerbated the situation in the territory. Domestic issues have further
fomented this rivalry, namely: the role of the military in Algeria and the
state’s hardline strategy vis-à-vis the conflict in the Western Sahara; and in
Morocco the intransigency of the government, which is backed by public opinion
and staunch mass support for the "Moroccanity" of the Western
Sahara and the territorial integrity of Morocco.

Bardem, who states he is motivated by
human rights concerns in the Western Sahara, treats none of these complex historical
and political issues. The Oscar-winning actor does not shed light on the role
of Algeria in the conflict. Nor is the Hollywood star concerned about the
treatment of the Sahrawis in the camps of Tindouf by their own POLISARIO Front,
which the actor visited in 2008. According to a Human Rights Watch report from that same year (2008), many camp refugees are deprived of basic the rights
of movement, assembly, and freedom of expression. There are even allegations of slavery
inside the camps.

For the last 37 years, the Maghreb has
been plagued by the conflict in the Western Sahara, which has greatly stalled
any prospects of the regional integration and cooperation necessary to address the
realities of an increasingly globalized world. As the de facto ruler of the
Western Sahara, Morocco has its eye on the long-term benefits of reaching a
compromise with Algeria over the Western Sahara, and has provided a serious
plan for resolution of the conflict. Alas, Algeria's military and its political
obsession with its larger geo-political ambitions in the region have hindered
any attempt at a meaningful consideration of the Moroccan plan.

The blind rejectionism of anything
Moroccan will only lead to maintaining the current status quo largely in favor
of Morocco at this point. Any meaningful compromise between Morocco and Algeria
is beneficial not only to the two countries, but also to the other three
countries in the Maghreb region, as it could be a tremendous step towards full
economic, political integration, and building a security regime in the face of
mounting terrorist threats in the Sahel region.